It seems that the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment. It’s updated it’s preferred terms to include climate emergency, crisis or breakdown, instead of climate change and global heating, instead of global warming. Maybe most controversially, it is suggesting using climate science denier instead of climate sceptic.

One of my most read posts is a guest post by Richard Betts arguing that we should label the behaviour, not the person. Although I haven’t always succeeded, I have tried to follow this basic suggestion; I try to avoid labelling an individual, even if I do sometimes discuss the existence of people who deny climate science. I think this has helped to avoid some discussions degenerating.

However, even though these discussions don’t degenerate, this doesn’t make them particularly worthwhile; they’re pleasant, but mostly pointless. It also hasn’t avoided people accussing me of engaging in name-calling. It seems that this is just a convenient excuse that some use to justify why they can’t engage in meaningful discussions with those they regard as alarmists.

So, I’m in two minds about the Guardian’s new style guide. I think avoiding using terms like climate science denier can help a little to improve the overall tone of the dialogue. However, it doesn’t really seem to encourage any kind of meaningful discussion and avoiding it doesn’t seem to really change that some will still throw around accusations of name calling.

My guess is that it will make little difference. Those writing for the Guardian are almost certainly not trying to reach those dismissive of the risks associated with climate change; this probably isn’t actually possible. It may even seem appealing to their regulars. It could, potentially, put off some of those who are undecided, but I don’t think anyone knows what really works, so it may be worth a shot.

Now that Barack Obama and James Hansen have been labeled deniers by no less than Naomi Oreskes and Greg Laden, the term seems to have little utility other than a deligitimizing form of insult. But then, I guess that’s a feature, not a bug for most who employ it.

ATTP: Re Obama being labeled a “new class of climate denier” by Oreskes, it’s definitely not in the article you cited. To the best of my knowledge, Obama has never called for a massive infusion of new nuclear power plants because renewable energy by itself cannot do the job.

I am in favour of using the most powerful words we have. If the majority of scientists have this right, are we not looking at a holocaust? Often we don’t want to say it because we don’t want to think it, but by saying something, we have a better chance of addressing it.

Often we don’t want to say it because we don’t want to think it, but by saying something, we have a better chance of addressing it.

I think the problem is that when you get to the stage where you’re trying to convince people that we need to do something and, in this case, something quite disruptive, the language that is used can be important. It may well be that the Guardian is perfectly justified in using the terms that it’s now going to use, but that might be rather irrelevant if it ends up putting off people who might otherwise be convinced. If I learned anything in the last few years, it’s that I don’t think anyone really knows what works and what doesn’t.

I personally am not in favour of calling people “deniers”, but mostly because it is an invitation to move away from a discussion of the science, economics or politics onto a (usually unproductive) “nature of the debate” debate. If that is not what you want to discuss, then better to stick to “skeptic”, even if it isn’t accurate (can always leave the quotes there) so you can continue on a battlefield of you own choosing.

I also think if you want to discuss the science, it is a mistake to use terms that confuse the science with economics, or political values (so I am happy with “climate change”).

The Guardian and Observer style guide changes reflect an event hosted by The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review, and enlivened by the delivery of a cheque for a megabuck b Bill Moyers of the Schumann Foundation

As noted in The Nation:
The Nation and the Columbia Journalism Review hereby announce Covering Climate Change: A New Playbook for a 1.5-Degree World, a project aimed at dramatically improving US media coverage of the climate crisis. When the IPCC scientists issued their 12-year warning, they said that limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require radically transforming energy, agriculture, transportation, construction, and other core sectors of the global economy. Our project is grounded in the conviction that the news sector must be transformed just as radically…The project will launch on April 30 with a conference at the Columbia School of Journalism in New York City—a working forum where journalists will gather to start charting a new course

Clive,
The Guardian isn’t a scientific publication, it’s a newspaper. It certainly seems to have an agenda, and is clearly in favour of taking action to minimise the impact of climate change. So, this change seems broadly consistent with that agenda (although some think it won’t be an effective way to achieve it).

Just out of interest, do you regard political activism as a bad thing?

The CBS News article that I linked to in my initial post on this thread is based on the results of research conducted by SPARK Neuro, a neuroanalytics company that measures emotion and attention to optimize advertising and entertainment. SPRAKNeuro’s research and findings are documented on this webpage:

No there is nothing wrong with political activism, although some of the cheer leaders are climate scientists so should really take a more balanced position.

If it is a political issue whether we face an imminent climate emergency, then you must also accept those who express opposing viewpoints expressing an opinion. There are good arguments as to why some knee jerk “green” imposed switch to renewable energy would end up a total disaster.

The Guardian and apparently most climate “scientists” want to shut down informed debate on future energy options in the name of some “emergency”. The transition from fossil fuels to something else inevitably has to be slow. Something else is probably some form of nuclear energy. Let’s stick to the original Paris agreement of 2C giving us over 30y to do it.

If it is a political issue whether we face an imminent climate emergency, then you must also accept those who express opposing viewpoints expressing an opinion.

Why must? One option is to try and engage with those who express opposing viewpoints. Another is to try and win the political fight by making them seem ridiculous. The latter seems more common than the former (politics doesn’t typically involve reaching a consensus with other parties).

There are good arguments as to why some knee jerk “green” imposed switch to renewable energy would end up a total disaster.

If you’re really concerned about this, maybe you need to engage with those who express opposing viewpoints?

While the plan does not call for the construction of any new nuclear power plants, it does call for keeping the Monticello nuclear plant in operation.

The article says this about the role nuclear power.in Minnesota…..

With respect to nuclear, while it is not part of our consensus proposal, Xcel’s preliminary plan also includes an expectation of relicensing its Monticello nuclear plant and operating it at least until 2040. (To date, no nuclear reactor in the United States has received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend its operating license beyond 60 years, but three applications are currently pending.) This concept will require close examination by stakeholders and regulators on whether it is the most cost-effective path toward a 100% carbon-free electricity future and whether the plant can continue to operate safely beyond 60 years.

“Another is to try and win the political fight by making them seem ridiculous. ”

Of course you can try to do that if you want but if you were to win then it will undoubtably rebound on you, because there is no looming climate disaster, instead there would be a far more dangerous energy crisis.

The introductory paragraphs of the above cited article about Excel energy’s plan for Minnesota…

Today, Xcel Energy released a preliminary plan to phase out its remaining coal-fired power plants in Minnesota and replace them primarily with wind, solar, and energy efficiency—moving the company forward toward its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050.

Part of the plan involves a consensus proposal joined by the Union of Concerned Scientists, other clean energy organizations, and the Laborers International Union of North America.

Below are some of the noteworthy items included in the consensus proposal and Xcel’s plan—and how they relate to Minnesota’s clean energy future.

It doesn’t appear that the greens even had a seat the table. Perhaps they controlled the planning process through the use of secret radio beams. 🙂

The Guardian and apparently most climate “scientists” want to shut down informed debate on future energy options in the name of some “emergency”.

Do you think that “most climate scientists” works agree with your characterization of what they “want?”

If not, then consider that maybe your impression of what they “want” is colored by your own biases. You know, judging other people’s intent can be very difficult. Over-confidence in one’s ability to judge the intent of others is, IMO, a common sign of a failure to control for bias.

John Hartz’s link is a masterpiece.
“The company expects its electricity production — including nuclear power — to be 75% carbon-free by 2030. However, that is short of its previous goal of 85% carbon-free power by then.
Xcel’s announcement was part of a long-term resource plan it must file with Minnesota utility regulators every few years. In the last plan, Xcel, Minnesota’s largest utility, announced it would close two of its three big Sherco coal generators in Becker in 2023 and 2026, respectively.”

In short- the state mandated that Xcel produce a report showing how it will go carbon free sometime in the future. The new report dials back previous goals (because they were obviously unrealistic).
The story also says that Xcel will not build any new wind farms, but will only replace existing ones. It will take on some, but not much, new solar- all the solar coming from “a state-mandated program”.
So where is the juice going to come from to replace the coal plants? The story mentions that too- they’re going to build a giant natural gas plant and extend and expand the nukes. And, of course, the closure of the coal plants is a “goal” set for 11 years away and, conveniently, without a price tag for consumers. In other words, lots of time to change their minds once people see what their glorious new electricity rates would be.

jeffnsails850 : I have cited Xcel Energy’s long-range plan to demonstrate that a very large electric utility in the US not included building new nuclear power plants in its long-range plan. I used this example in response to Cliff Best’s general pronouncement that nuclear power has to be the predominate way of generating electric power in the future. It ain’t going to happen because bringing new nuclear power plants online is way too damn expensive compared to the alternatives.

“The story also says that Xcel will not build any new wind farms, but will only replace existing ones. It will take on some, but not much, new solar- all the solar coming from “a state-mandated program”.
So where is the juice going to come from to replace the coal plants?”

Minnesota has never had *any* fossil fuel resources (unless you want to talk about a few peat bogs),. Half the state sits on top of a granite bedrock. We realize that fossil fuels are the result of the luck of the draw and whatever boom there was elsewhere is nearing its end.

ATTP;
It’s rather brave of Clive refer to something many cwould rather leave forgotten–The Energy Crisis. It dominated policy polemics of the 1970’s and was advertised as an existential threat to civilization as widely as the climate crisis is today

While justifying R&D on alternatives like wind, solar, and ethanol, the OPEC embargo “Oil Crisis” led in political reality to the wholesale expansion of coal fired electricity, because, all thenational academied concurred, America’s vast reserves of cheap coal promised energy independence for generations to come.

It took less than a decade for the loud consensus on energy shortage as the wave of the future ( CF the Club of Rome Report )to implode into silence- between 1976 and 1984 as the Energy Crisis morphed into the Oil Glut

The OPEC oil embargo led to France starting their huge nuclear energy programme, because they previously depended on oil power stations. Over the next 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying all its power needs and now export electricity to other European countries including Britain. The France/UK interconnector supplies a near continuous 2GW power supply to the UK national grid, and regularly outperforms all ~10,000 on-shore and off-shore wind turbines.

Russell, might the strange behaviour of the world during and after the OPEC crisis, unlike either conventional supply-and-demand or rational planning for a future world, have had something to do with the fact that it was an artificially created crisis, politically motivated and implemented by a supply-side boycott?

”
It dominated policy polemics of the 1970’s and was advertised as an existential threat to civilization as widely as the climate crisis is today
…..
It took less than a decade for the loud consensus on energy shortage as the wave of the future ( CF the Club of Rome Report )to implode into silence- between 1976 and 1984 as the Energy Crisis morphed into the Oil Glut
”

While Clive Best may be brave for his reference to what many would rather leave forgotten, it is downright heroical for Russell Seitz to compare the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” of 1972 (!) and similar futurist conjecture to the work of tens of thousands of climate science researchers spanning decades.

And I thought the “4 C of climate change will be like living 5 degrees closer to the equator” argument was a bit brazen.

Anyway:
Since America survived OPEC, there is no existential threat to civilization to be concerned about.

Except, perhaps, the vast over-abundance of bravado caused by the fallacy of false analogy.

OPEC soon lost its preeminent position, and in 1981, its production was surpassed by that of other countries. Additionally, its own member nations were divided. Saudi Arabia, trying to recover market share, increased production, pushing prices down, shrinking or eliminating profits for high-cost producers. The world price, which had peaked during the 1979 energy crisis at nearly $40 per barrel, decreased during the 1980s to less than $10 per barrel. Adjusted for inflation, oil briefly fell back to pre-1973 levels. This “sale” price was a windfall for oil-importing nations, both developing and developed.

“It took less than a decade for the loud consensus on energy shortage as the wave of the future ( CF the Club of Rome Report )to implode into silence- between 1976 and 1984 as the Energy Crisis morphed into the Oil Glut”

This is more than a bit brazen. If you look at the world crude oil production data up to 1975, anybody that would look at the curve below on the left would naively forecast an exponential growth for the ensuing years. Eyeballing a trend, it should have taken about another 5 years before the world hit 85 million barrels a day. But you look at what actually happened ~45 years later, conventional crude oil barely nudged 85 million and it is below that level today.

It was never a real “Oil Glut” in geological terms. Exponential growth was unsustainable, so the world economy adjusted.

While Clive Best may be brave for his reference to what many would rather leave forgotten, it is downright heroical for Russell Seitz to compare the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” of 1972 (!) and similar futurist conjecture to the work of tens of thousands of climate science researchers spanning decades.

Thanks to Jeb too, for reminding us of the cyclic nature of apocalypptic rhetoric in media culture. Now as in 1972, or 1988, poplar perceptions are driven more by choral doomsaying by soi-disant climate communicators on prime -time than tens of thousands of researchers publishing papers read largely by themselves

As Death Valley and The Empty Quarter earned their epithets long before the Energy Crisis, the prospect of serious deserts being rendered even more deserted by AGW is a less serious policy concern than growing desertification in populous regions like western China.

Now as in 1972, or 1988, poplar perceptions are driven more by choral doomsaying by soi-disant climate communicators on prime -time than tens of thousands of researchers publishing papers read largely by themselves

Are you suggesting that tens of thousands of researchers should each be directly engaged in informing the public?

Has here ever been a time a in modern history when the vast majority of published research papers were read by other than fellow researchers?

”
Now as in 1972, or 1988, poplar perceptions are driven more by choral doomsaying by soi-disant climate communicators on prime -time than tens of thousands of researchers publishing papers read largely by themselves
”

Poplar (sic) perceptions of science have been more driven by the tee-vee and print meeja than those nerdy scientists and all their intra-disciplinary jargon and high-falutin’, low-Nielsen-rating publications?

Perhaps the apocalypptic rhetoric would bother you less if you were to inject some more of that “soi-disant” into your own learned self-affirmations.

”
As Death Valley and The Empty Quarter earned their epithets long before the Energy Crisis, the prospect of serious deserts being rendered even more deserted by AGW is a less serious policy concern than growing desertification in populous regions like western China.
”

OK, then.
Since some places have had scary names since before Fourier and Tyndall, and since we have identified at least one serious policy concern that might be more serious than AGW, it certainly follows that the climate crisis is choral doomsaying.
That’s just great.

Poplar (sic) perceptions of science have been more driven by the tee-vee and print meeja than those nerdy scientists and all their intra-disciplinary jargon and high-falutin’, low-Nielsen-rating publications?

“This is more than a bit brazen. If you look at the world crude oil production data up to 1975, anybody that would look at the curve below on the left would naively forecast an exponential growth for the ensuing years. Eyeballing a trend, it should have taken about another 5 years before the world hit 85 million barrels a day.”
1975? Hmm, err, kind of hard to tell since the graphs presented begin in either January 2003 (lhs) or 1990 (rhs), respectively.

Now as in 1972, or 1988, poplar perceptions are driven more by choral doomsaying by soi-disant climate communicators on prime -time than tens of thousands of researchers publishing papers read largely by themselves

With respect to climate science, the scientific findings of “thousands of researchers publishing papers” have been and continue to be synthesized by the IPCC on a scheduled basis. These syntheses are published posted for the whole world to see,. They are closely scrutinized and referred to people in both the public and private sectors and by the media. Do not these synthesis reports give voice to the tens of thousands of researchers publishing papers read largely by themselves.

But you look at what actually happened ~45 years later, conventional crude oil barely nudged 85 million and it is below that level today.
The graph clearly states “World Peak Aug 2015 96.9 mb/d” hmm, err, I wonder what the IEA sez ….

Guardian’s new style- ask people in the diplomatic corps if they think the best way to get a politician to do something is to more energetically and publicly denounce them. Then ask them if it works well if your goal is objectively bad policy.

Peddling is a cold sale technique. To get into your house, the peddler needs to make you open the door. Then he needs to insert his foot into the door frame. One way to do so is like any other confidence trick. First earn trust. e.g.

[Earn Trust] Guardian’s new style- […]

Then make a provactive enough claim to pique curiosity:

[Pique curiosity] ask people in the diplomatic corps if they think the best way to get a politician to do something is to more energetically and publicly denounce them

Finally, make your cold sale:

[Sell] Then ask them if it works well if your goal is objectively bad policy.

The sell is cold because the “objectively bad policy” is unsubstantiated and probably cannot. It’s just a bait. How to deal with baiting leads to a dilemma. On the first horn, if the bait is contested, peddling succeeds. On the second horn, if the bait is ignored, an implicit concedo can be perceived.

Were it not for this comment, JeffN’s peddling would have been snipped. Or not – it’s not like me or AT are here on the look out each minute of every day. We try to minimize having to intervene, and so far it goes well.

All this to say that some ClimateBall discipline goes a long way in saving everyone’s time. Please don’t take this comment as an opportunity to discuss moderation. It would be playing the ref, and comments to this effect will be deleted.

JH:”and continue to be synthesized by the IPCC on a scheduled basis. These syntheses are published posted for the whole world to see,. They are closely scrutinized and referred to people in both the public and private sectors and by the media. Do not these synthesis reports give voice to the tens of thousands of researchers publishing papers read largely by themselves.”

Not in my experience of the IPCC process.

What has been “published posted for the whole world to see ‘ (sic) is Executive Summaries writen by a comparative handul of international committee members.

They do not” give voice to the tens of thousands pf researchers.” because while researchers supply fodder for both analysiis and editorial ellipsis , most have no voice in writing the Executive Summaries,

”
They do not” give voice to the tens of thousands pf researchers.” because while researchers supply fodder for both analysiis and editorial ellipsis , most have no voice in writing the Executive Summaries,
”

Censorship! Consensus police!

Russell – The IPCC Reports contain these things that are called “citations”.

If you want primary sources, you don’t even have to get out of your comfy-chair.

VRJ
Have you been on an interdisciplinary paper chase lately?
When the FAR came out, this university subscribed to 35,800 journals spread out over 108 libraries. Even after decades of consolidation , and on line access, active researchers still have to drop in on a half dozen journal rooms on a two mile circuit to peruse the scores of journals in play in academic climateball.

C’mon, Russell.
You really ought to have your librarians: show you why they index those on-line subscriptions, point you to abstracting services, and maybe let you in on the inter-library loans secret.
This information technology is available all over the world. Even in Canada.